explaining that, in reviewing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, affording it the benefit of every reasonable doubt and resolving conflicts in testimony in its favor
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, in reviewing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, affording it the benefit of every reasonable doubt and resolving conflicts in testimony in its favor
- explaining that a judgment n.Q.v. can be entered where the evidence was such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in favor of the movant
- holding that a lack of informed consent claim requires “expert information as to the nature of the harm attendant to the procedure, and the probability of that harm occurring.”
- citing, inter alia, Smith v. Yohe, 412 Pa. 94, 194 A.2d 167 (1963); Gray v. Grunnagle, 423 Pa. 144, 223 A.2d 663 (1966)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. There is clear, unequivocal evidence in this record that Appellant, Dr. Raeuchle, was negligent when he “inadvertently” punctured an ovarian artery during the course of the instant operation. Subsequent unfortunate events all resulted from this act of negligence. It seems to me that the Superior Court was clearly right here to reverse a jury verdict for the doctor and the hospital and to grant judgment n.o.v. for Appellee. At the very least, Appellee would be entitled to a new trial.
The majority opinion is based on the theory that Appellee impliedly consented to the operation in question. 1 However, she did not, and could not, consent to the negligence that occurred. I would affirm the Superior Court in this matter.
. I agree with the conclusion of footnote 8 of the majority opinion that the issue of negligence was waived. However,' this is not a case of tort based on negligence but a case of tort based on lack of informed consent. See opinion, page 1006 and footnote 6.
My position is that no knowledgeable person gives informed consent to a physician to damage them through negligence during surgery and then says, "Okay, I absolve you of the negligence if you will make the necessary repairs." This is ludicrous.